Should we really give up on rel=next and rel=prev tags now that Google is ignoring them?

What does Google's abandonment of rel=next and rel=prev really mean?

These tags historically signaled to Google that a series of pages formed a coherent set — typically a list of products split into multiple pages, blog archives, or internal search results. The initial goal was to help the engine understand the logical structure and avoid treating each pagination page as an isolated entity.

Google used these signals to consolidate ranking signals and sometimes display a canonical URL in search results instead of page 7 of a series. Now that these tags are officially ignored, the engine relies solely on other mechanisms: internal links, HTML structure, and especially its ability to detect pagination patterns by analyzing content and URLs.

Why did Google make this decision?

The reason given — and it is consistent with the evolution of algorithms — is that Google believes it can manage pagination independently without the need for technical crutches. Modern crawlers analyze link structures, identify numerical patterns in URLs (?page=2, /p2/, etc.) and detect 'Next Page' buttons.

But let's be honest: this claimed autonomy also masks a pragmatic reality. Many sites implemented these tags incorrectly — broken chains, infinite loops, contradictions with canonicals. Rather than dealing with these errors, Google chose to simplify by removing the signal.

What are the implications for content discovery on paginated sites?

The real issue is the indexing of deep pages. Without rel=next/prev, Google must discover your pages 8, 12, or 20 solely through internal linking and sequential crawling. If your pagination is poorly configured — non-crawlable JavaScript buttons, 'Load more' links without an HTML fallback — you risk having some pages never visited by Googlebot.

The other critical point concerns the dilution of internal PageRank. Each pagination page becomes a standalone node in your link graph. Without an explicit signal to group these pages, the SEO juice is distributed differently. Deep pages that received credit through consolidation might lose visibility.

• Google no longer automatically consolidates signals from paginated pages — each page is evaluated individually
• Discovery relies on internal linking and automatic detection of pagination patterns
• Non-crawlable JavaScript implementations become a major risk for incomplete indexing
• Canonical management on paginated pages must be impeccable to avoid indexing conflicts
• Crawl budget may be impacted if Google explores dozens of value-less pagination pages

Is this statement consistent with ground observations?

Yes and no. On well-structured sites with clean HTML pagination and consistent linking, the observed impact has been minimal. Google correctly indexes deep pages, rankings remain stable. But on complex architectures — e-commerce with multiple filters, large archives — there are sometimes sharp drops in indexing on pages beyond the 4-5 threshold. [To be verified] whether this correlation is directly related to the abandonment of rel=next/prev or other factors like the perceived quality of paginated content.

Mueller states that “if it’s working well right now, there’s no need to change.” This is true on the surface, but it overlooks a crucial point: you might not realize it’s not working well anymore. Many sites have lost indexing on long-tail terms without the teams noticing, simply because KPIs focus on strategic pages. A deep audit of pagination page indexing often reveals gaps.

What concrete risks arise from ignoring this development?

The first risk is partial indexing of catalogs. An e-commerce site with 500 products spread across 25 pages may end up with only the first 5 pages indexed. Products at the end of the list become invisible. Google simply does not crawl all the way through if the linking or click depth pose issues.

Next, there’s the issue of ambiguous canonicals. Some CMSs auto-canonicalize all pagination pages to page 1. Without rel=next/prev to indicate the series, Google may interpret this as intentional duplication and arbitrarily choose which version to index. The result: strategic pages disappearing from the index or competing against each other.

When does this rule NOT apply?

If your site uses infinite pagination in JavaScript without HTML fallback, you were probably never covered by rel=next/prev anyway. These tags required distinct URLs for each page. A SPA (Single Page Application) that dynamically loads content without changing the URL has never benefited from this mechanism.

Another case: sites that implemented a 'View All' pagination with a single page displaying all content. Google has always preferred this approach when technically feasible. If you had a 'full page + canonical' strategy, the abandonment of rel=next/prev changes nothing in your configuration.

What should be prioritized when auditing a paginated site?

Start by checking the actual indexing of your pagination pages. Use targeted site: queries (e.g., site:example.com/category?page=) in Google Search Console to see how many pages are actually in the index. Compare it with the theoretical number. A discrepancy of over 20% merits investigation.

Next, analyze the crawl behavior in server logs. Is Googlebot sequentially exploring your pages 1, 2, 3… or does it jump directly to certain pages through external links? If crawling systematically stops at page 5 while you have 30, you have a depth or crawl budget issue.

What technical modifications should be made now?

Absolute priority: flawless internal linking. Each pagination page must include HTML links to the previous, next, first, and last pages. 'Load more' systems in AJAX must have an HTML version as a fallback with indexable URLs. If your pagination relies solely on JavaScript, you are at critical risk.

Also revisit your canonical strategies. If all your pagination pages point to page=1, that’s likely an error. Each page should be self-canonical (<link rel="canonical" href="/category?page=2">) UNLESS you have a specific strategic reason to consolidate. And in that case, ensure that Google is correctly indexing the page you want.

How to avoid common mistakes after the abandonment of the tags?

Never block pagination pages in robots.txt thinking you’re saving crawl budget. It’s counterproductive: Google must be able to explore these pages to discover the content they contain. Instead, use 'noindex, follow' meta robots if you want to avoid indexing while allowing discovery — but be careful, this can weaken the PageRank passed.

Another classic pitfall: inconsistent URL parameters. If your pagination uses ?page=2 sometimes, &page=2 other times, or /p2/ according to sections of the site, Google will struggle to detect the pattern automatically. Normalize the approach across the entire domain.

• Check the complete indexing of paginated pages via Search Console and advanced site: queries
• Analyze server logs to identify premature crawl stops on long series
• Implement complete HTML linking (previous/next/first/last) on all pagination pages
• Audit and correct canonical tags — each paginated page should be self-canonical unless justified by a strategy
• Normalize pagination URL patterns across the entire site to facilitate automatic detection
• Test the JavaScript-disabled version of your pagination to ensure crawl accessibility